Political discussion on SW

Person a: so and so politician said x which is why I don’t like him
Person b: I like him, you took that out or context, provide the original context
Person a: *provides a longer video giving context*
Person b:’...I don’t have the time to watch that, and I just know it isn’t true without watching it!’

I’ve been person A many times

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

I'm coming across this kind of argument more and more:

Person a: so and so politician is x!
Person b: do you have evidence of that?
Person a: no, but prove that he isn't x!

I think it goes hand in hand with conspiracy thinking. Things are asserted without evidence, then the person who makes that assertion demands that the other person prove it isn't true even though they cannot prove their own assertion. The burden of proof is all skewed.

lynncelestial · 31-35, F

@SW-User I usually find dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory goes hand in hand with people who dismiss everything they don’t like, in general.

You learn so much from so many people if you have the rule of ‘I will not dismiss things off the bat as being a conspiracy theory’. And I have a masters degree in psychology so I know a lot about how people think.

SW-User

@lynncelestial It's an easy out. Labeling things as "conspiracy" can be a way of avoiding having to look for the truth, because the truth will be "covered up". But likely the truth is there.

lynncelestial · 31-35, F

@SW-User exactly but didn’t you just do that with your comment of ‘conspiracy thinking’

SW-User

@lynncelestial I was just pointing out that refusing to provide evidence and demanding that others disprove your unsubstantiated claims is often a hallmark of those who believe in conspiracy theories. They always try to off-load the burden of proof. In your example, person b could just say "that video has been edited! Prove that it hasn't been!". As if they want the eliminate the possibility of finding the truth.

lynncelestial · 31-35, F

@SW-User I usually find it’s the opposite. Dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory is one form of stupidity that is often accompanied by other forms of foolishly dismissing people. People who dismiss things as conspiracy do so because they quite literally don’t want to look up evidence and want someone else to find evidence for them, do the work for them, which becomes the official narrative and then dismiss anything else as a conspiracy because surprise surprise they don’t want to have to look things up.

SW-User

@lynncelestial Yes, immediately labeling a claim as "conspiracy theory" without investigating it is dismissive and stupid. Examine the evidence and discuss its merit and what truth it may contain. Giving it a negative dismissive label (like "conspiracy", "fake news", "propaganda") from the outset is a way to avoid addressing the argument being made and consulting the evidence.

By "conspiracy thinking" I was referring to the kind of dismissiveness that everything is fake news, brainwashing, or propaganda. I'm not making a judgment about any claim itself. If someone makes a claim and they have evidence, I'll examine it and debate it, I won't say "that's a conspiracy theory, I'm not reading that". But I will call out attempts to make a claim unfalsifiable. What's the point of debating something that can't be proven true or untrue?